For far too long, every time I heard the team name “Jets”, I immediately tuned out because I assumed there was a football (you know, that sport where there is 13 minutes of action in 3 hours) discussion about to take place. No more! The Winnipeg Jets are back and the Winnipeggers couldn’t be happier about it. They are a loud and enthusiastic bunch. Coincidentally, L.A. Kings fans go into this game hoping to hear those same ‘Peggers quiet and somber.

Winnipeg is a good team. They rebounded after a rough start. They are one of the best home teams in the league – 12-6-1. The Jets are 17-14-5 overall. They are offensively led by Evander Kane who has 17 goals and 11 assists with a +9. He had all of 19 goals and 24 assists last season. In goal for the Jets should be Ondrej Pavelec. You may recall the 7-0 ass kicking we were handed in Atlanta? Pavelec was in goal for that.

If the Kings play like they did last night and keep this up tempo momentum they have had since Terry Murray’s firing going, L.A. can beat anyone on any given night. However, this is a back to back. Last night’s game against the Blackhawks was a hard skating game and, as I wrote in the post game, a great team game from everyone – G to D to F.

I hope to see Jonathan Bernier in net. I hope to see the Kings with their legs for 60 minutes. Should be fun.

Speaking of fun, you have all no doubt seen Drew Doughty’s cup check moment with Jarret Stoll. I tried to get Surly on a mission to interview Drew but he said he wasn’t going to Winnipeg…something about too far, too cold and fuck that. So I tried to imagine…if I asked Drew the reason for his unique post game celebration and he was going to answer me candidly, what would he say? Here is my top 10.

… Are the Kings going to score two goals again, only to see people continuing to rave about how much better they are offensively than they were under that evil Terry Murray, and fall all over themselves jumping on the anti-Murray bandwagon and pissing on his grave a little more than they did the day before?

Is the offense going to continue to be credited as the reason for winning despite the fact that the Kings have allowed only 6 goals in the 4 games Sutter has coached?

I don’t know about you, but I’m gonna stay tuned! I don’t wanna miss out on the new trendy developments in KingsLand!

Really? Sutter has had 1 practice in his 9 days on the job. He has to coach from the bench and if you can’t see the difference in the Kings under Sutter than when they played for Murray, I don’t know what to say. Did you miss the game where the Kings gave up 3 goals and still won in regulation?

Kane says it best:

The Blackhawks were 10-0-1 against Kings in the teams’ previous 11 meetings, including a 2-1 win at Los Angeles in November. But Kane said the Kings also had more jump in even-strength situations on Wednesday.

“It seemed like they worked a little bit harder and they maybe didn’t give up as much offensively for us,” Kane said. “I think that team has got a lot of good players over there, a lot of skill. They should be competing with teams like us.”

Kane should know how poorly the Murray coached Kings played against Chicago.

And from Sutter:

SUTTER: “It’s mostly those little things in the system that they’re used to, where we’re trying to be a little more assertive in parts of the game, where we can get the puck back quicker instead of waiting to see what the other team is going to do. There’s parts of the when you’ve got the puck and then we’ve got the puck. The style that we want to move toward is just a little less time and space in parts of the ice.
“They don’t have any bad habits. It’s just a little different style for them. It’s hard to adjust, especially for the defensemen. You have to remember that when Murph [Terry Murray] came here, they were an awful defensive team. So it was all about that structure, and getting back and protecting and all that. We still want to do that, but we want to be more assertive in areas where it’s a 50-50 puck, or it’s nobody’s puck. We’ve got to be more assertive, instead of letting (the other team) get it and then going into coverage.,’’

The Kings may still miss the playoffs with Sutter behind the bench, but Murray had to go, no reason to cry about it now. I wasn’t happy with the Sutter hiring and wanted the Kings to go with a new, young coach, but I’m willing to give Sutter the entire rest of the season to get the Kings offense in gear. So far, I like what I see and once he gets some practice time with the team, I expect the offense to improve. The team doesn’t just sit back and wait for the other team to attack, they are more proactive. Yes, they still take too many shots from the outside and they don’t move enough on the PP, but Sutter hasn’t had time to work with the team as much as he would probably like with the holiday break. He stayed behind and watched video with Dean instead of going home for Christmas. I’m sure the players appreciated that from their coach, he’s willing to put in the time to improve the team any way he can.

“Did you miss the game where the Kings gave up 3 goals and still won in regulation?”

… No sir, there were no soft goals given up by Jason LaBarbera in that one, sir!

“Kane says it best”

… Well I’m sure he’s not going to say “well hey, they’re running the same thing for the most part, but they got lucky tonight”, right?

“Murray had to go, no reason to cry about it now”

… Who’s crying about it? I’m just finding it funny and myopic that so many people want to say how different the Kings’ offense is being run when it’s not being run differently at all, as well as the exaggeration about how few chances the Kings were getting before Sutter was hired. It’s pure fiction, but I’m not surprised how it has taken a life of its own. I also find it funny how I’m labeled the number one Murray backer when I’ve criticized him so often over the years. There’s so much selective memory going on.

“The team doesn’t just sit back and wait for the other team to attack, they are more proactive”

… I’ll tell you what. Name me one goal the Kings have scored under Sutter that they wouldn’t have scored with Murray’s game plan. Just ONE.

“I’m sure the players appreciated that from their coach, he’s willing to put in the time to improve the team any way he can.”

… You gotta be bullshitting me here. Do you honestly believe that Murray was skimping on work ethic? Christ. I’ve hammered Murray for several reasons over the years, but there was no time I thought he was anything but a pro and wasn’t working as hard as possible. Like I said, it’s like “let’s find new and more made-up ways to piss on this guy’s grave”. Unbelievable stuff.

… I’ll tell you what. Name me one goal the Kings have scored under Sutter that they wouldn’t have scored with Murray’s game plan. Just ONE.

What kind of dumb question is that?

I’ll say that both Chicago goals wouldnt have been scores with Murray as the head coach. The Kings would have stayed back and let Chicago attack, just like almost all of the games against Chicago with Murray at the helm. The first goal was scored with all three forwards down below the dots and away from the boards. No “dot-to-board l” play involved. No pass back to the point.

So there is one, but the question is impossible to answer because Murray is gone. Sutter wants the team to push forward and Murray wanted them to sit back and defend.

Let’s give Sutter some practice time with the team before we declare his offense the same as Murray’s.

“ The first goal was scored with all three forwards down below the dots and away from the boards. No “dot-to-board l” play involved. No pass back to the point.”

… The first goal was scored off of an initial shot from the right wing boards, where Hunter was almost at the goal line when he took the shot. It was a sharp angled, nothing shot. And yeah, eventually Hunter drifted from the boards to the front of the net, only because the puck was loose for such a long time.

The second goal started with two shots from the point by Doughty. The first one was blocked, the second one wasn’t. There was only one man in front of the net when the shots were taken, and that was Williams. Again, the puck was loose long enough for Stoll to go from the left wing boards to the front of the net.

Christ, is it too much for people to watch the fucking game? Please tell me that Stoll and Hunter wouldn’t have crashed the net with a loose puck in the crease if Murray was the coach. That would be perfect.

Why didn’t they do it when Murray was still the coach? Stoll was usually stuck at the blue line as the 3rd defenseman. Since they didn’t do it with Murray, then he was asking them to play differently. They were usually too far away to get to the loose pucks.

“Since they didn’t do it with Murray, then he was asking them to play differently. They were usually too far away to get to the loose pucks.”

… Perfect! LOL. You guys are so right! The Kings NEVER went to the net for loose pucks when Murray was the head coach. It never happened!

Seriously, this is the funniest shit I’ve read in a while. I don’t even know what to respond with … I guess I could say watch the highlights of the games and see how the Kings scored goals prior to the coaching change, but hell I certainly don’t want to let any facts ruin this wonderful story of the evil coach who forbade the team to score and the new coach who broke down the barriers. I think Disney could make a movie about it.

The same way you don’t want to acknowledge at all that the coach himself has said he has made some adjustments? That the players have said they are being asked to do things differently? That where there once was failure and lethargy now there is success and energy?

No one ever said the Kings never got loose pucks you dope. We said they were in positions to play defense, playing with the assumption the other team would come out with the puck instead of Jumping in to get that damn puck. They didn’t get as many loose pucks because they were hanging back, waiting to see the play develop and to be in position to play defense. That’s not the attitude now and that’s a difference! How can you not see this?

Let me paint a picture. A little boy on his paper route always throws the paper with his right hand, with four fingers wrapped around the paper. He also takes his time and aims every throw carefully. It hits the doorsteps about 40% of the time. Then he gets a throwing lesson and he starts to throw with his right hand but only gripping it with two fingers and instead of aiming carefully, he just throws it, trusting he will make the shot. Now he hits the doorstep 60% of the time. Is it 100% better? No. Does it the paper hitting the doorstep look exactly the same? Yup.

Now what you are saying to us is that because the way the paper hits the doorstep is the same means that there must not be a inning different with the way it is thrown. Your logic is fucking backwards JT, full of fallacy and demonstrating an ignorance of both facts given to you by the way the Kings are playing, affirmation othreat by the players and coaches and of the game itself. You are so positive that everyone else is just making shit up because they hate Murray that you can’t see when you are saying things that A) don’t follow logically and B) are plainly wrong. I feel that this all goes back to your insistence that the team is overrated. If a coaching change helps the team it’s like you’d also have to admit that you underestimated the talent on the team. That or you are a contrarian by nature, stubborn on purpose, or the definition of the troll you often accuse others of being.

We aren’t talking a matter of opinion. There is no value judgement necessary. We are simply talking about a fact, the fact that the Kings are playing different both with and without the puck in the offensive zone than they did while Murray was coach.

Oh JT. No one is saying the system is vasty different under Sutter. But there have been small systematic changes. If you can’t see them you aren’t looking closely enough or simply don’t give a shit about nuances like where the second forward skates on zone entry or how te players rotate during the cycle. Of course the biggest difference is the attitude, as the players are responding well to a new message and vibe from their coach.

The offense isn’t winning games but the puck possession and forecheck and team speed are. The defense is about the same. The difference between winning and losing this past week has been the extra hustle and momentum that comes from winning battles and having more time with the puck. The finish is starting to come because of those things.

Also, you being in the minority of opinion is not synonymous with a bandwagon and the flaws of a man being pointe out, either calmly our outrageously is not akin to scapegoating. But since you are kind enough to let us have our bandwagon I will be nice enough to allow you to broadly and negatively categorize the mutual agreements of others in an effort to feel more comfortable and righteous about being on the outside looking in.

“If you can’t see them you aren’t looking closely enough or simply don’t give a shit about nuances like where the second forward skates on zone entry or how te players rotate during the cycle.‘

… It sure looks a lot better when the players are executing that stuff properly, doesn’t it? Why they didn’t do it for Murray – God only knows.

Where and when the second or third forward skates into the zone is determined by a few factors, like how the opponent is positioning their defenders or how good or bad those defenders are. The game plan doesn’t stay the same when the opponent changes.

The Kings were fortunate to get some breaks in the game yesterday, and unlike many of the games Murray coached, they actually made use of those breaks. Good for them, and of course I’m happy with any W, but saying that the positive result is because of changes in the game plan is just kidding yourself. It all sounds good when you’re trying to bash a guy, and make him responsible for the perceived underachievement for a team that was overrated to begin with – but that’s it. It just sounds good. It’s not based in reality.

Sutter:
“They don’t have any bad habits. It’s just a little different style for them. It’s hard to adjust, especially for the defensemen. You have to remember that when Murph [Terry Murray] came here, they were an awful defensive team. So it was all about that structure, and getting back and protecting and all that. We still want to do that, but we want to be more assertive in areas where it’s a 50-50 puck, or it’s nobody’s puck. We’ve got to be more assertive, instead of letting (the other team) get it and then going into coverage.’’

That is why the Kings are executing better. It’s not luck, it’s not “getting bouces”, it’s a change in philosophy.

Are you saying that you know more about the Kings game plan than Sutter? You really believe that the Kings are playing exactly the same system as Murray and are just getting the bounces?

Below I outlined in my own words with specific examples exactly what Sutter says in this quote, that they are doing things DIFFERENTLY. What the fuck else proof do you need? Do they have to suddenly start playing San Jose’s system for you to notice a difference?

JT it’s like you see the game in terms of two systems, an offensive system and a defensive system, as if there is no in between. You are accusing others of myopia while exercising it yourself. It’s quite perplexing.

Where and when the second or third forward skates into the zone is determined by a few factors, like how the opponent is positioning their defenders or how good or bad those defenders are. The game plan doesn’t stay the same when the opponent changes.

No shit. The difference is under Murray the F2 hung back and waited to see what happened with the initial board battle by F1 and almost always went to a place about 15 feet away on the boards waiting for a pass or to play D in case we lost the battle. Under Sutter the F2 gets right in there and helps with the puck battle. That’s a subtle but major difference, and it’s been consistent. Ofcourse situations call for different reads sometimes, but in general the philosophy has changed from “2nd forward assess the situation and be ready for a pass or to play D” to “2nd forward get the fuck in there and help play the puck” that’s a system difference. Not a huge change in Xs and Os but it is something Sutter has implemented and it’s absolutely not just the same under Murray with the only difference being execution.

That is based on fact. It’s simply what the players are doing differently. It’s not luck, it’s not jut an execution issue, it’s a change in the way the team approaches offense, AKA the system.

As for the Kings taking advantage of breaks, a large part of that and specifically the goals last night were because the Kings were in better position to take advantage of those breaks and working harder to cash in on them because the attitude has changed. The forwards were collapsing towards the goal instead of hanging back around the dots like they did under Murray. You aren’t going to get many lose pucks that way, but when 2 or 3 forwards drive the net right away, your chances of getting “lucky” go way up. For someone who loves to use numbers how can you not understand this concept in making your own luck? Its called statistical probability. The puck can only bounce so many places, where you position yourself influences the odds of you getting that “lucky bounce”. The great players in the game have this sixth sense and understand the odds instrinsically, which is why they always seem to be in the right place at the right time. They don’t just get lucky all the time. It seems like luck, and chance does play its role as it always does, but to just call it luck is to see the game in a light that doesn’t account for anticipation, otherwise known as hockey sense. It’s why Richards is so good on the PK. It’s why Smyth and Holmstrom get so many garbage goals. It’s why Luc always had a lane to shoot.

I met a guy a few months ago who was visiting from Edmonton, where he lives and has season seats for the Oilers. He is originally from Winnipeg tho and when the Jets came back, he bought 5 years of season tickets, even though he lives in Edmonton. Granted he was a rich mofo, but still, that’s some serious support and dedication.

I don’t particularly like how we played that period. We need to get more physical without being stupid and need to also calm down defensively and make some smarter passes in our own zone. Snuff out their energy and then activate our own instead of just trying to match their intensity in all three zones. Calmer in our zone, smarter in the neutral zone and more aggressive in ther zone.

Yeah I’m going with this one too. Post goal-molestation deterent. Would make for a hilarious 2 on1. “You take it”— “no, mothersutter you take it!”— “just Drew it over the net”— “done.”— “shit that was close”